Lawford Electric
Lawford Electric Company – Case Analysis
Critical Summary
This sale was Lawford’s to lose. Lawford Electric Company’s ongoing, 8-year relationship with Bayfield Milling Company, coupled with the geographic proximity of the two businesses, gave them a competitive advantage upon which they were unable to capitalize.
The price tag of the drive system for which Lawford prepared a competitive bid represented more than 17 years of Bayfield’s average annual purchases from Lawford.¹ Sales engineer Robert Allen’s approach was simplistic and his notes suggest an assumption that the $871,000 sale would be a slam dunk, largely due to the factors mentioned in the opening paragraph.
Each of the three sentences which comprise Allen’s strategy reveals a flawed perception of his role. His strategy was centered only on key decision makers and his priorities were 1) emphasizing benefits and 2) “influencing the final specs” (pg. 3), rather than utilizing an inquisitive, collaborative approach to gain a genuine understanding of customer needs.
Allen bombarded his contacts at Bayfield with specs, benefits, and pamphlets and regarded as trivial several potentially significant interactions. He made unfounded assumptions and, as a result of his focus on influencing the process, missed opportunities to explore and adequately address customer concerns.²
In addition, the number and frequency of calls and visits made by Allen to Bayfield seem relatively low considering the size of the contract.
Lawford Electric did not win this contract because they lacked sufficient information to provide an ideal solution.
Problem Statement
Lawford Electric must ensure that its sales force has the training and support necessary to close sales using an approach whereby customer needs are fully explored.
Suggested Alternatives
Sustain Quandary
Adoption of this strategy is to maintain the status quo at Lawford Electric.
Elevate, Collaborate, and Evaluate
Adoption of this
Critical Summary
This sale was Lawford’s to lose. Lawford Electric Company’s ongoing, 8-year relationship with Bayfield Milling Company, coupled with the geographic proximity of the two businesses, gave them a competitive advantage upon which they were unable to capitalize.
The price tag of the drive system for which Lawford prepared a competitive bid represented more than 17 years of Bayfield’s average annual purchases from Lawford.¹ Sales engineer Robert Allen’s approach was simplistic and his notes suggest an assumption that the $871,000 sale would be a slam dunk, largely due to the factors mentioned in the opening paragraph.
Each of the three sentences which comprise Allen’s strategy reveals a flawed perception of his role. His strategy was centered only on key decision makers and his priorities were 1) emphasizing benefits and 2) “influencing the final specs” (pg. 3), rather than utilizing an inquisitive, collaborative approach to gain a genuine understanding of customer needs.
Allen bombarded his contacts at Bayfield with specs, benefits, and pamphlets and regarded as trivial several potentially significant interactions. He made unfounded assumptions and, as a result of his focus on influencing the process, missed opportunities to explore and adequately address customer concerns.²
In addition, the number and frequency of calls and visits made by Allen to Bayfield seem relatively low considering the size of the contract.
Lawford Electric did not win this contract because they lacked sufficient information to provide an ideal solution.
Problem Statement
Lawford Electric must ensure that its sales force has the training and support necessary to close sales using an approach whereby customer needs are fully explored.
Suggested Alternatives
Sustain Quandary
Adoption of this strategy is to maintain the status quo at Lawford Electric.
Elevate, Collaborate, and Evaluate
Adoption of this